Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/466.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2021-02-25 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2021-02-25
Summary (Justice Demanded)
In a comprehensive review of the court documents, several instances of perceived bias, potential injustices, and unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, a struggling father, were noted. Despite Aaron’s consistent adherence to court procedures, he has faced a blatant disregard for his rights as a parent. His children have been repeatedly denied access to him, even on court-scheduled pick-up days, by Sirinya Surina and Keith Landrus. Landrus, listed as an ‘advisor’ in court documents, has demonstrated a gross violation of Aaron’s rights with comments indicating a blatant disregard for court orders and the legal process, such as “Court Orders Don’t Matter” and “The Police Won’t Do Anything About It”.
Furthermore, there was a noted bias in favor of Sirinya Surina, with Landrus undermining the integrity of the legal system, suggesting that Aaron’s attempts to enforce his rights through legal means would be ineffective, an unjust assumption that appears to discourage Aaron from seeking justice. Disturbingly, the children expressed fear and distress when ordered to go with their mother, yet these pleas were ignored by the court.
The court has also shown a concerning disregard for allegations of harm against the children. Despite reports of physical and sexual abuse at the mother’s house, a temporary restraining order against Sirinya Surina was cancelled without a hearing. Aaron’s contempt request against her for withholding the children, needing police involvement, and refusing to pay court-ordered expenses was dismissed without a hearing. This dismissal further bolsters Aaron’s perception of bias and unfairness in these proceedings.
Additionally, Aaron was served a fake restraining order, orchestrated by Sirinya, leading to him being falsely accused of kidnapping his own children on a court-ordered pickup date. This caused significant distress and confusion and further exacerbated the unfair conditions Aaron has had to endure. Court staff, including Susan Robson and Erik Clark, have also continued to deny Aaron’s attempts to file documents and communicate with the court, adding to the potential bias in his case.
In conclusion, this case reflects a severe lack of transparency, potential bias, and unethical conduct that have unfairly disadvantaged Aaron Surina in his attempts to ensure the safety and wellbeing of his children. His ongoing struggle to protect his children from harm and maintain custody in the face of these hardships is an alarming testament to the potential injustices present in the legal system.
About The Author
